The architecture of the mother charts PPC 970 64 bits should have like trade description Mach 64. The official logo will represent an apple around which a shuttle spaciale will orbit.
The commercial slogan will be "With Mach 64Technology"
Oldest will remember that Mach 64 was the code name of chip ATI Rage Pro.

To return with the PPC 970, the frequency of the top-of-the-range machines is not yet known. It will be to it on May 15. The forecasts however remain optimistic with at least 2 GHz.

Originally posted by RBRThe 970 chip is, apparently, viewed as just a transitional chip.

All chips are transitional. The 970 is no more so than the Pentium2 was. There have been no formal announcements of the 980, but there has been that the 970 will migrate to 0.09 micron and become the 970+ next year so I think your timeline for the 980 is too aggressive. The POWER5 will just be hitting the market early next year so I don't expect to see a PowerPC version of that for another year after that. The 970 has legs, however, so I don't think this is a bad thing.

MacBidouille translation
The architecture of the PPC 970 64 bit motherboards should be getting a "Mach 64" trademark. The official logo will depict an apple with an orbiting space shuttle. The commercial slogan will be "With Mach 64 Technology". The older ones amongst us will remember that Mach 64 was the code name of the ATI Rage Pro chip.

Getting back to the PPC 970, the machines' frequency at the high end is not yet known. It will be on May 15. Predictions remain optimistic though with at least 2Ghz.

Originally posted by ProgrammerAll chips are transitional. The 970 is no more so than the Pentium2 was. There have been no formal announcements of the 980, but there has been that the 970 will migrate to 0.09 micron and become the 970+ next year so I think your timeline for the 980 is too aggressive. The POWER5 will just be hitting the market early next year so I don't expect to see a PowerPC version of that for another year after that. The 970 has legs, however, so I don't think this is a bad thing.

________________________________________________

Programmer,

Yep, all chips are transitional, but IBM apparently intends this one to be more so than usual.

There was an IBM document on the web at one point which has apparently been removed which showed the 980 for 2H of 04 (whether that was realisitic or not is anyone's guess). The gist of the timeline was that IBM would be changing process and that their plan was to move to the Power 5 and 980 when they changed process. IBM apparently has big plans for the Power 5 and 980 and they want to get it in production ASAP. This is not an Apple driven thing. I do not see the 970 as having "legs" as you put it, simply because the plan is to replace it with something better/faster/cheaper. Does the 9xx have legs? I certainly would expect that it will. IBM intends that it will.

The plan to shift to the Power 5 and 980 when they are going through the rework for the process change seems logical. Will IBM be able to accomplish it? We shall see. Even they have experienced some problems of late in getting all of their new technology to work right. Would it be nice if they were able to pull it off? Yea, it sure would.8)

Originally posted by *l++MacBidouille translation
The architecture of the PPC 970 64 bit motherboards should be getting a "Mach 64" trademark. The official logo will depict an apple with an orbiting space shuttle. The commercial slogan will be "With Mach 64 Technology". The older ones amongst us will remember that Mach 64 was the code name of the ATI Rage Pro chip.

Getting back to the PPC 970, the machines' frequency at the high end is not yet known. It will be on May 15. Predictions remain optimistic though with at least 2Ghz.

Brings back memories of rumours associated with Apple and a satellite system of some sort. That was ~2-years ??¿¿ ago.

I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes----- Fred Blassie 1964

Originally posted by Ensign PulverNo way on God's green earth will an image of the space shuttle ever be in an Apple logo. Not gonna happen.

Mach 64 sounds like a codename to me.

All things considered, I couldn't agree more ... the associations with crashing and burning aren't exactly "on message" ...

No offense, I love space flight and all that, and if somebody offered me a chance to go into orbit on the shuttle, hey, I'm there ... but sorry, the shuttle's cachet has been somewhat diminished of late.

Which makes me wonder if Macbidoulle's 'source' isn't just playing with it to make it look foolish ...

In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...

Originally posted by RBRThere were some comments about 970 and 0.90 nm process. The IBM plans that have been on the web do not show any such combination. IBM plans to go to the 980 as soon as possible next year. Initially the 980 will be in the 0.130 nm process and then go to a 0.90 nm process.

A Pet Peeve(TM):

Please watch your units and terminology. I (and most others) know what you mean, but we shouldn't be required to translate.

0.130 nm is the size of a single atom. Fab sizes are nowhere near that good yet. I believe you mean 0.130 µm, or 130 nm.

You've made two mistakes with 0.90 nm. Again, nm is absurdly small, so you must mean µm. But then, the process size is not 0.90 µm, but 0.090 µm or 90 nm.

Not meaning to pick on you specifically, since there are a number of folks who are playing fast and loose with their units and numbers in these matters. When I see obvious mistakes like this (or spelling and grammatical errors), it tends to lower the poster's credibility with me rather significantly. When I read a post and encounter errors like these, I am forced to assume the author has made a mistake. It causes me to wonder what other mistakes have been made, perhaps not so obvious.

I know it is impossible to catch all mistakes. I make plenty myself. Proofreading and editing go a long way toward maintaining credibility around here, though.

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei

Power5 is not really Opteron competition. The PowerPC 970/980 however, is. Can't we just, er, wait until we have a machine with a PowerPC 970 inside before going into the future of the future? Remember where all the G5 PPC 8500 talk got us? Right. Nowhere. We're using G3s and G4s nowadays.

Originally posted by AmorphClever. The pro board that was to accompany the G3-based Gossamer was codenamed Mach 5. The 64 bit motherboard will require a 64 bit version of the Mach kernel fused to Darwin.

And, of course, Mach 64 is unbelievably fast.

I thought Mach 5 was previously the 300MHz and greater 604e that IBM produced just before the G3?

Maybe we can get Matsu to start a poll. I'll vote for 130nm and 90nm since it is actually a wavelength we are talking about !

The first is mistaken, either a misprint or a bad special symbol. Micron is µm. m just means meter.

When process dimensions are used they do not refer to wavelengths. These are the minimum written sizes of any features on a particular process, the wavelength of the illumination used is quite different (usually 248nm for 180nm and 130nm processes, with 193nm coming soon).

Please watch your units and terminology. I (and most others) know what you mean, but we shouldn't be required to translate.

0.130 nm is the size of a single atom. Fab sizes are nowhere near that good yet. I believe you mean 0.130 µm, or 130 nm.

You've made two mistakes with 0.90 nm. Again, nm is absurdly small, so you must mean µm. But then, the process size is not 0.90 µm, but 0.090 µm or 90 nm.

Not meaning to pick on you specifically, since there are a number of folks who are playing fast and loose with their units and numbers in these matters. When I see obvious mistakes like this (or spelling and grammatical errors), it tends to lower the poster's credibility with me rather significantly. When I read a post and encounter errors like these, I am forced to assume the author has made a mistake. It causes me to wonder what other mistakes have been made, perhaps not so obvious.

I know it is impossible to catch all mistakes. I make plenty myself. Proofreading and editing go a long way toward maintaining credibility around here, though.

________________________________________________

You're right.

A slip of the decimal point that might be misleading. However, you are also correct that the intended dimensions were 90 nm and 130 nm. If they ever do get down to the 0.0xx level (and there are people working on processes that will take things to the level of a very few atoms) that will be quite remarkable. There's quite a difference!